Preview: That book I dont get to read because I wont pay up

[lorddunlow]

Popularity determines how often things are pirated. In fact, there are several studies showing that for TV shows and movies, that seed/leech numbers and distributed copies correlate very well with how well that show or movie will do. There are some networks that even use these numbers to judge how popular a show is.

you just said heavily torrented tv shows/ movies are successful.

Yes. But the torrents don't make it successful. The torrents reflect its popularity.

I'm not saying piracy makes that which is pirated fail. The percentage of piracy to legitimate consumption is small, but it is not inconsequential. It does affect the bottom line. There is harm done. I also agree that most of the harm is done to the company instead of the creators. However, it is very shortsighted to conflate small harm to no harm and mostly company harm to only company harm.

In today's world, if a creator has the ability to produce a work on their own they can. They can put it online and even charge for it. They'll do that. If they do so through a publisher/distributor, then there is some benefit that the publisher provides. The publisher deserves compensation for that because otherwise the work would not exist.

I also agree the publisher/distributors often make a greater percent of the profits than they are due. This doesn't justify theft via piracy.

To Hunter, it is RIDICULOUS to say that digital goods are imaginary. I guess services are imaginary too and what I do for a living can't be stolen. That's just not true.

To all: Let's try to avoid the personal attacks in this discussion.

[GammaJosh]

And for a further counterpoint; theft applies to all cases of goods being stolen, but piracy only applies when there is a copyright on the work. This would suggest that there is nothing innately wrong with duplicating works, only a legal penalty for infringing a specific document. It hardly is the same level of crime as stealing a wallet or a tv or embezzlement. All of which are individually more harmful to businesses in demonstrable ways. Just a thought.

So, it sounds like you're agreeing with the following statement relevant to this discussion about pirating comics:
"Less harmful does not mean harmless."
Yes, no, maybe?

No. I would say it is harmless, yet also not legal. And less harmful can mean harmless, obviously. Zero harm is less harm than any given amount of harm more than zero.

Especially in relation to comics, as most creator owned works aren't pirated and the remainder is work for hire in which those involved in making it have already been paid. As has been shown earlier in the thread, some comics even increase in sales due to piracy. I think that's largely due to Comixology being easier than torrenting, and very convenient. That and the market being so niche.

But anyway, that leads us into a discussion of what the laws dealing with piracy should be and how current legislation is entirely ill-suited to deal with it, which is a conversation for another day.

Okay, I was going to stay out of this, but you are just delusional if you think consuming the creative works produced by artists and publishers/distributors is harmless.

Also, where are numbers that support your statement that most creator owned works aren't pirated? I would say The Walking Dead is the most pirated comic of all time. Just pull up some torrents and check seed/leech numbers... I'll wait. In fact, I'd say Image books are pirated much more than other books. Popularity determines how often things are pirated. In fact, there are several studies showing that for TV shows and movies, that seed/leech numbers and distributed copies correlate very well with how well that show or movie will do. There are some networks that even use these numbers to judge how popular a show is.

I used to download tons of Image books before they went DRM-free. I purchased the hard copies, but downloaded torrents to read. I was unwilling to commit my money to digital copies from Comixology that, according to their TOS, I did not actually own. Now, I purchase direct from Image,and occasionally Comixology.

Also, Comixology is not easier than torrenting. Safer, but not easier.

Bottom line is regardless of what your rationalization is, if you consume a product without giving money to the creators (either directly or indirectly), you are depriving them if livelihood. That is stealing.

I was trying to remember, I've only ever glanced at comics torrents. I already read enough without downloading more in a different way! Also I forget that The Walking Dead is a creator-owned book. I only read it in compendiums and dislike the show, so I forget it exists most of the time. So that would be why I make mistakes like that, as I'm not particularly familiar with comic torrents. I do know that it's considered to not really be a problem with American comics, though, because I've read some stuff about how it's a much greater phenomenon with manga and the like.

As for ease of access, I find a storefront with nearly every book released in real time to be superior to a search engine for torrents, but that's obviously just my opinion. It's just a much nicer format.

And since when is not gaining from something a loss? By basic logic copyright infringement is at worst perfectly neutral as far as finances go. It's not delusional to recognise that the "damage" is purely imaginary. Which of course it is, because we aren't talking about physical goods, so the same standards simply don't apply. YOU CANNOT STEAL SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

Seriously, this is like Shrodinger's Profits or something. They exist and do not exist until they are observed. The profits that are claimed to be lost do not exist until the individual buys the work, so if they don't buy it, the profit doesn't exist. Whether or not someone has read the book has no impact on that one way or the other.

TLDR: Not gaining from something is not the same as losing something. It's extremely entitled to suggest otherwise.

As someone who has had his own output pirated, these arguments really raise my ire. No, not all instances of pirating would have been actual sales. Most wouldn't have been. But statistically some of them probably would have been. You can't just consider the cost on an individual basis. You have to consider the cost of an entire generation that has convinced itself that stealing is ok. And yes, I know the law calls it copyright infringement, but our parents all taught us right from wrong when we were kids and we all know in our hearts that it is stealing. And money issues aside, why don't you think about how those hard working artists feel when they see people downloading their work for free. I can tell you from first hand experience that it feels like *SQUEE*.

[ilzuccone]

also lets make one thing very clear here. the company is making all the money the creator is not

The contract I signed with Marvel that outlines royalties paid to me based on number of sold copies of books containing my work says otherwise....

are you a creator or talent? if you're with marvel my guess is your making books with other's IP. could be wrong tho. i don't know if marvel does creator owned books anymore... but as far as i know even if you do create a character in a marvel book it's work for hire right? so they own that character outright. fill me in i'm not trying to get into this argument i genuinely am interested. isn't marvel well known for throwing the creators of their classic characters out with the bathwater? or was that DC?

i'm talking creators. the person that comes up with the IP. yes you could still say their money depends on rating/sales but they are getting a fraction of it.

i would argue these creators, if the current system went away, would create better products and make more money.

[ilzuccone]

also lets make one thing very clear here. the company is making all the money the creator is not

The contract I signed with Marvel that outlines royalties paid to me based on number of sold copies of books containing my work says otherwise....

This.

don't get smug with me dunlow

[ilzuccone]

also lets make one thing very clear here. the company is making all the money the creator is not

The contract I signed with Marvel that outlines royalties paid to me based on number of sold copies of books containing my work says otherwise....

are you a creator or talent? if you're with marvel my guess is your making books with other's IP. could be wrong tho. i don't know if marvel does creator owned books anymore... but as far as i know even if you do create a character in a marvel book it's work for hire right? so they own that character outright. fill me in i'm not trying to get into this argument i genuinely am interested. isn't marvel well known for throwing the creators of their classic characters out with the bathwater? or was that DC?

i'm talking creators. the person that comes up with the IP. yes you could still say their money depends on rating/sales but they are getting a fraction of it.

i would argue these creators, if the current system went away, would create better products and make more money.

ok i see where dunlow and i were talking about two different things maybe. i'm an artist that works for these soulless studios also. for me a "creator" is the guy running the show. the guy who came up with the idea/ip.

but looking from the outside in I'm guessing "creator" also includes the artists who work on the show/comic etc?

[depluto]

So Capt. Jack Sparrow was actually an *SQUEE*?

[depluto]

And what if you pirate a book about pirates written by a pirate?

[leonmallett]

And what if you pirate a book about pirates written by a pirate?

Or pirate some pyrite while doing pilates and asserting your pie rights?

[leonmallett]

It seems pretty clear to me that ultimately this has proven a decisive and divisive move to some, and that there are those of us who view it as exploitation of a committed audience to very artificially inflate sales, in a way that arguably demands interest from that committed audience far more than comes from producing variant covers.

I for one hope it is not repeated by VEI after Book of Death concludes.

[DirtbagSailor]

Once I get a few copies of LotG graded and slabbed, I'll make them available for sale of course.

That way people can pay even more for the book and STILL not be able to read it!

[Beware Cyclops]

And what if you pirate a book about pirates written by a pirate?

Then you have one irate pirate!

[nscc]

Once I get a few copies of LotG graded and slabbed, I'll make them available for sale of course.

That way people can pay even more for the book and STILL not be able to read it!

[kjjohanson]

Once I get a few copies of LotG graded and slabbed, I'll make them available for sale of course.

That way people can pay even more for the book and STILL not be able to read it!

For the next promotion, Valiant will pre-slab the entire print run, so you have to crack a slab to read it.

[DirtbagSailor]

Once I get a few copies of LotG graded and slabbed, I'll make them available for sale of course.

That way people can pay even more for the book and STILL not be able to read it!

For the next promotion, Valiant will pre-slab the entire print run, so you have to crack a slab to read it.

Don't play with such an idea.

There are more than a few guys in the comicbook game who would see such a convenience as the greatest thing since sliced bread and you know it lolol!

[kjjohanson]

Once I get a few copies of LotG graded and slabbed, I'll make them available for sale of course.

That way people can pay even more for the book and STILL not be able to read it!

For the next promotion, Valiant will pre-slab the entire print run, so you have to crack a slab to read it.

Don't play with such an idea.

There are more than a few guys in the comicbook game who would see such a convenience as the greatest thing since sliced bread and you know it lolol!

I wouldn't put it past Dynamite to try it.

[jeremycoe]

Once I get a few copies of LotG graded and slabbed, I'll make them available for sale of course.

That way people can pay even more for the book and STILL not be able to read it!

For the next promotion, Valiant will pre-slab the entire print run, so you have to crack a slab to read it.

Don't play with such an idea.

There are more than a few guys in the comicbook game who would see such a convenience as the greatest thing since sliced bread and you know it lolol!

I wouldn't put it past Dynamite (sucks!) to try it.

Dynamite can't do anything original. Someone else would have to do it first.

[Donovan]

also lets make one thing very clear here. the company is making all the money the creator is not

The contract I signed with Marvel that outlines royalties paid to me based on number of sold copies of books containing my work says otherwise....

are you a creator or talent? if you're with marvel my guess is your making books with other's IP. could be wrong tho. i don't know if marvel does creator owned books anymore... but as far as i know even if you do create a character in a marvel book it's work for hire right? so they own that character outright. fill me in i'm not trying to get into this argument i genuinely am interested. isn't marvel well known for throwing the creators of their classic characters out with the bathwater? or was that DC?

i'm talking creators. the person that comes up with the IP. yes you could still say their money depends on rating/sales but they are getting a fraction of it.

i would argue these creators, if the current system went away, would create better products and make more money.

Sorry, misunderstood your question.

I'm talent. (Wow, that sounds arrogant. lol)

I could care less about the semantics. My point is that people who are directly responsible for putting the books in your hands that you enjoy have their livelihoods hurt by pirating.

I won't judge anyone who pirates. (Even my own creator owned stuff - I just ask that if you had any reaction to it higher than 'that was god awful!', pay for it.) Just own it. Don't justify it. Spin words around why it's better than supporting a corporation. Split hairs over creators/talent. Etc.

[geocarr]

And for a further counterpoint; theft applies to all cases of goods being stolen, but piracy only applies when there is a copyright on the work. This would suggest that there is nothing innately wrong with duplicating works, only a legal penalty for infringing a specific document. It hardly is the same level of crime as stealing a wallet or a tv or embezzlement. All of which are individually more harmful to businesses in demonstrable ways. Just a thought.

So, it sounds like you're agreeing with the following statement relevant to this discussion about pirating comics:
"Less harmful does not mean harmless."
Yes, no, maybe?

No. I would say it is harmless, yet also not legal. And less harmful can mean harmless, obviously. Zero harm is less harm than any given amount of harm more than zero.

Especially in relation to comics, as most creator owned works aren't pirated and the remainder is work for hire in which those involved in making it have already been paid. As has been shown earlier in the thread, some comics even increase in sales due to piracy. I think that's largely due to Comixology being easier than torrenting, and very convenient. That and the market being so niche.

But anyway, that leads us into a discussion of what the laws dealing with piracy should be and how current legislation is entirely ill-suited to deal with it, which is a conversation for another day.

Man, I bet you were hell on the debate team...

[hunter_peterson]

To Hunter, it is RIDICULOUS to say that digital goods are imaginary. I guess services are imaginary too and what I do for a living can't be stolen. That's just not true.

Uh, yeah? I literally have not said that at any point. I'm saying that the only "loss" that can be claimed is from POTENTIAL profits. They don't exist unless you buy an copy, regardless if you read it or not. Whether or not it is physical or digital is irrelevant. You aren't depriving someone of anything by not buying something, even if you still read it somehow. Reduced potential earnings =/= theft of held earnings.

The profits companies claim to lose through piracy by definition never existed to be lost in the first place.

I mean really, obviously digital goods are real. That never has been relevant to the discussion at all. Not sure how you read that from my posts...

Man, I bet you were hell on the debate team...

I choose to interpret that as a compliment.

[ilzuccone]

also lets make one thing very clear here. the company is making all the money the creator is not

The contract I signed with Marvel that outlines royalties paid to me based on number of sold copies of books containing my work says otherwise....

are you a creator or talent? if you're with marvel my guess is your making books with other's IP. could be wrong tho. i don't know if marvel does creator owned books anymore... but as far as i know even if you do create a character in a marvel book it's work for hire right? so they own that character outright. fill me in i'm not trying to get into this argument i genuinely am interested. isn't marvel well known for throwing the creators of their classic characters out with the bathwater? or was that DC?

i'm talking creators. the person that comes up with the IP. yes you could still say their money depends on rating/sales but they are getting a fraction of it.

i would argue these creators, if the current system went away, would create better products and make more money.

Sorry, misunderstood your question.

I'm talent. (Wow, that sounds arrogant. lol)

I could care less about the semantics. My point is that people who are directly responsible for putting the books in your hands that you enjoy have their livelihoods hurt by pirating.

I won't judge anyone who pirates. (Even my own creator owned stuff - I just ask that if you had any reaction to it higher than 'that was god awful!', pay for it.) Just own it. Don't justify it. Spin words around why it's better than supporting a corporation. Split hairs over creators/talent. Etc.

yeah i was just trying to get at the fact that the creators or even the talent (especially the talent) doesn't see as much money as some people think. i was derailing the derail. its a subject i often get on a soapbox about. if we artists don't fight back we will continue to get taken advantage of.

[TheFerg714]

Looks real good. Already shows Nergal and references Dead-Side. Can't wait to pirate this online from someone else's PDF scans!

Yup, me too. It better get collected in the Deluxe HC.

EDIT: Wow, ok, there's a lot more going on in this thread than I first assumed...
I have no problem with pirating, or with other people pirating, as long as you're not refusing to pay for anything. For example, I buy every Valiant comic (besides Dead Drop, ugh) and I download Imperium, Rai, and X-O Manowar because I know I'll be buying them in the future, whether that be in trade or Deluxe HC form. As far as LotG goes, I have no problem with downloading it because I absolutely refuse to pay more than $5 for a comic. It's just silly. If I found it floating around some store for $10 or less, I'd probably pick it up, but it just feels like a waste.
Besides Valiant, I actually pirate quite a few Marvel and DC comics, but I also buy a whole s***-ton too. Normally the stuff I download isn't worth the money though. If I do feel like they're worth the money, I make sure to go out and buy a copy, or wait for the trade if it sold too fast or anything. I realize that it's silly to assume that everyone thinks this way, but it works for me, and I feel like I support the industry enough to not feel bad about it.

[omega_override]

Can't wait to pirate this online from someone else's PDF scans!

I was under the impression that Valiant needed all the sales it could get...

Something is seriously wrong with you if you freely talk about piracy in a fan forum for an independent comic book company

[lorddunlow]

To Hunter, it is RIDICULOUS to say that digital goods are imaginary. I guess services are imaginary too and what I do for a living can't be stolen. That's just not true.

Uh, yeah? I literally have not said that at any point. I'm saying that the only "loss" that can be claimed is from POTENTIAL profits. They don't exist unless you buy an copy, regardless if you read it or not. Whether or not it is physical or digital is irrelevant. You aren't depriving someone of anything by not buying something, even if you still read it somehow. Reduced potential earnings =/= theft of held earnings.

The profits companies claim to lose through piracy by definition never existed to be lost in the first place.

I mean really, obviously digital goods are real. That never has been relevant to the discussion at all. Not sure how you read that from my posts...

Man, I bet you were hell on the debate team...

I choose to interpret that as a compliment.

Seems like you said that...

Which of course it is, because we aren't talking about physical goods, so the same standards simply don't apply. YOU CANNOT STEAL SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

You were referring to digital goods and stating they did not exist. But your argument above doesn't hold water either. If you are reading or watching something, you are consuming it. You should pay the creator of the works in some way. It is wrong to do otherwise.

Going to a library and borrowing a book is different. Someone else paid for it and is loaning it. They no longer have access while you borrow it. You can rationalize all you want but it is still theft.

[hunter_peterson]

To Hunter, it is RIDICULOUS to say that digital goods are imaginary. I guess services are imaginary too and what I do for a living can't be stolen. That's just not true.

Uh, yeah? I literally have not said that at any point. I'm saying that the only "loss" that can be claimed is from POTENTIAL profits. They don't exist unless you buy an copy, regardless if you read it or not. Whether or not it is physical or digital is irrelevant. You aren't depriving someone of anything by not buying something, even if you still read it somehow. Reduced potential earnings =/= theft of held earnings.

The profits companies claim to lose through piracy by definition never existed to be lost in the first place.

I mean really, obviously digital goods are real. That never has been relevant to the discussion at all. Not sure how you read that from my posts...

Man, I bet you were hell on the debate team...

I choose to interpret that as a compliment.

Seems like you said that...

Which of course it is, because we aren't talking about physical goods, so the same standards simply don't apply. YOU CANNOT STEAL SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

You were referring to digital goods and stating they did not exist. But your argument above doesn't hold water either. If you are reading or watching something, you are consuming it. You should pay the creator of the works in some way. It is wrong to do otherwise.

Going to a library and borrowing a book is different. Someone else paid for it and is loaning it. They no longer have access while you borrow it. You can rationalize all you want but it is still theft.

Ah, I think I deleted a sentence there while writing the paragraph. Oops.

I disagree that it isn't the same as borrowing, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[FormerReader]

For those that justify pirating books, why don't you send Dinesh a PM (and all the people responsible for creating the book) and let him know you would like to "borrow" a copy of their work. Let him know you have no intention on paying for it. You just want to read it and explain to him that you never intended to pay for it so he and all the people Valiant employs aren't out anything.

If this makes you feel uncomfortable then ask yourself why?